Re: Obama Wants To Redistribute Wealth

Evelyn wrote:


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:48f73d45$0$4910$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx

Evelyn wrote:



"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:48f7297f$0$5631$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx

Evelyn wrote:

( previous post snipped-follow thread )

So, once he takes their money and gives it to the po folks, who's
going to be left to hire them po folks? What makes you think socialism
is going to work any better here than it does anywhere else? Does it
not register with you that what these political parties are doing is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL and do you simply not care?


Like hell it is.

Those so called "po" folks will spend the money buying clothes and
food and such which will in turn create a need for more grocery clerks
and shoe salesmen who will buy things that create a demand for other
goods.
Thumper





Exactly. It is only when the middle class and the poor have a bit more disposable income that they buy more clothing, food, luxury items, etc. This stimulates the economy by creating need for more. With the so called "trickle down" theory, the rich just ferret away more in their offshore accounts and the poor get poorer. In short, it doesn't "trickle down" at all.



While what you say is very likely how it plays out in the economy, disturbing facts reveal that unfortunately, the reactionaries may have a point when they say that 5% of the population pays 40% of the taxes. In fact, IRS statistics bear that out. So in reality, giving the poor and the middle class the tax breaks Obama wants will have a somewhat reduced effect. But IMHO, even that reduced effect is far better than none, as far as the economy is concerned, as their spending will STILL be along the lines that you assert and will produce the economic effects you predict.

What I find particularly curious, is that Reactionaries always speak of 'income redistribution' when they make their assertions that all Democrats want to do is take income away from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor and middle class. But they fail to realize that THEIR current tax policies, as evidenced by the failed Bush Administration, are ALSO income redistribution, but in the OPPOSITE direction; taking money from the poor and middle class and redistributing it to the wealthy. Various Government statistics from a variety of agencies reveal that the gap in income disparities between the wealthy and middle class is increasing at an alarming rate.

Of course, it behooves the reactionaries to speak of income distribution only in one direction and ignore the redistribution in the other direction that THEIR policies produce. But, hey, we all know that they are very good at mouthing half truths. The only problem is that they actually BELIEVE their half truths.





Yes, exactly so. Why is that I wonder? Don't they use the same numbers we do? Don't they live in the same country we do? Don't they have bills? Don't they have kids to raise? Don't they see what is happening? Don't they own stocks, read the papers, see the way things are going these days? Do no republicans lose their homes due to health care costs? Are there no poor or middle class republicans? Are they all happy with the current administration and the last 8 years of failed policies and unprecedented debt? Can they possibly want this trend to continue?


The answer to all your questions can be found in the old saw, 'ignorance is bliss.' Most people, unwilling to expend the intellectual capital to really research an issue and really understand the obvious as well as the inherent abstractions, tend to rely on simplistic explanations of the obvious. Unfortunately, those simplistic explanations, while comforting to their vastly deficient intellect, are usually wrong.

The other tactic they use to assuage their lack of knowledge and also intellect, is to rely on loaded phrases which they also really don't understand, but fear from an emotional point of view. It takes comfort to dismiss something as, say, 'creeping socialism, or as they do, 'income redistribution.' Doing so requires little or no understanding and in reality is an effort in rationalization of their beliefs, which are based on ignorance. Thus, they can rationalize their ignorance in these loaded phrases. Unfortunately, all that does is compound their ignorance and up the ante by adding an emotionally charged issue.

I know we have a scant few here who have been honest enough to express doubt, but there are so many who seem to march along in lockstep insisting on more of the same, chanting the same nonsense, no matter how thin the reasoning has proved to be.


True. There will always be those who refuse to be confused by the facts. While in our great country, they have every right to be as ignorant as they please, it causes a problem for the rest of us because they are allowed to express that ignorance when they vote.

I realize some irrational opposition may be due to racial issues, but one might think that a clear eyed, clear thinking, bright young man with good ideas and the clearly stated will to work, to straighten out the economy and our place in the world, would inspire some to realize that we are fortunate to have such an intelligent and idealistic candidate in the present time of chaos.


Unfortunately, while he has a lot of good ideas, when one examines the bottom line, I don't think he's going to be very effective at implementation. And given the fact that we are going into a recession, which from all indicators, appears to be going to be rather long, I would prefer to have a Republican presiding over our further economic decline. Because in 4 years, the Republicans will then have a case to attack many of his policies, which IMHO, the Nation needs, but because he was ineffective at implementation, mainly due to economic reasons, the population, which tends to use the simplistic, will vote a Republican in. Happened to Jimmy Carter, and I'm not willing to have 8 more years of Republican economics, which we all know is a failure.

I am seeing a lot of people crossing over and voting for Obama, so it would seem to show that not all of the people can be fooled by a slick old cranky politician with no good plans to solve anything, or held by the habit/energy of party affiliation. It takes courage to do that.


Obama has yet to explain how he's going to come up with the money to fund his programs. He's still predicted to increase the deficit by somewhere in the neighborhood of 261 billion, and that, given the economic climate is NOT good. McCain, for all his failed policies, will only increase the deficit a few billion more.

Times are tough and they are going to get tougher. Obama may not be perfect, but he has many, many virtues and strong points that would indicate he will apply himself and some of the best minds in the country toward resolving our problems at home and in the world. I see him as the candidate of hope.


Obama with all his good ideas, is going to come up short, and the American public isn't going to like it. They will take out their disappointment on his policies, which IMHO, for the most part, are worthwhile. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter, and I'm afraid it's going to happen again. I hope Hillary is willing to wait 8 years for another shot.




He says he will consult with the best minds in the country to solve the mess.

That's wishful thinking, Evelyn. He supposedly already has the best minds working for him, and he STILL comes up with a deficit going into a recession.

The republicans may be shooting themselves in the foot this time
around on purpose for all we know! After all, the problems he will inherit are going to be almost insurmountable.

No problem is insurmountable. Only the intellect to address it is at issue. During the Depression, the Nation was fortunate to have FDR in charge. For all his good intentions, I'm afraid Obama is no FDR. And IMHO, I believe that while his positions are worthwhile, they are too ambitious and unachievable. Given the bottom line of increased deficit in the face of a recession, I believe that compounds the problem.

But then he is a very bright man, and he just might be able to pull it off, and I am all for giving him the chance. Certainly McCain offers no better option.

Obama is indeed smarter than McCain, but he's no FDR. And that's what we need now.

I heard an interview with Hillary this morning. She said that she will be working closely with Obama. She also said that she is absolutely needed in the Senate right now, where she may be able to contribute best. These things are all good.

What did you expect Hillary to say? It's obvious that Obama is going to be elected. With regard to how he does in office, I do not share your optimism. I have a far more skeptical basis for my pessimism, which is grounded in a declining economy. Obama hit the nail on the head when he stated that no country can remain a military power whose economy declines, and that's exactly what I've been saying for at least two years here in this NG. But Obama has no real plans to attack the reason for our economic decline, which is the outsourcing of our manufacturing and the conversion of our GDP to an asset appreciation one, and unfortunately, that will be his undoing. Consequently all his worthwhile policies will suffer.

Given that, I 'd rather that a Republican be at the helm for a further decline, which we are going to get. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rural Versus Urban
    ... The Republicans can do a great deal of damage to Obama. ... If Obama doesn't do something and something relatively quickly, he's going to be in hot water. ... Republicans will simply wait out the business cycle and then claim their policies 'rescued' the economy. ... government has precluded the growing of the problem. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Rural Versus Urban
    ... The Republicans can do a great deal of damage to Obama. ... If Obama doesn't do something and something relatively quickly, he's going to be in hot water. ... Republicans will simply wait out the business cycle and then claim their policies 'rescued' the economy. ... Republicans, with their low-tax, pro-growth mantra seem to say that indeed government does have an effect over the economy. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Rural Versus Urban
    ... The Republicans can do a great deal of damage to Obama. ... If Obama doesn't do something and something relatively quickly, he's going to be in hot water. ... Republicans will simply wait out the business cycle and then claim their policies 'rescued' the economy. ... Republicans, with their low-tax, pro-growth mantra seem to say that indeed government does have an effect over the economy. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Rural Versus Urban
    ... The Republicans can do a great deal of damage to Obama. ... If Obama doesn't do something and something relatively quickly, he's going to be in hot water. ... Republicans will simply wait out the business cycle and then claim their policies 'rescued' the economy. ... Republicans, with their low-tax, pro-growth mantra seem to say that indeed government does have an effect over the economy. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Rural Versus Urban
    ... The Republicans can do a great deal of damage to Obama. ... If Obama doesn't do something and something relatively quickly, he's going to be in hot water. ... Republicans will simply wait out the business cycle and then claim their policies 'rescued' the economy. ... Republicans, with their low-tax, pro-growth mantra seem to say that indeed government does have an effect over the economy. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading